Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[tgmcg]

Electricpete,

For many Global Warming "KoolAid Drinkers", there is no room for an opposing viewpoint unless the holder of the opposing viewpoint is also slandered as a crackpot or industry stooge. It is intellectually dishonest (and outright slanderous) to dismiss bona fide experts in the field, such as Prof. Lindzen (Climatologist @ MIT) as a crackpot.

Pardon me if we are not the least bit persuaded or intimidated by such "my way or the highway" bullying tactics.

 

[corus]

I'd respect Prof. Lindzen's comments if he wasn't paid for by by OPEC and other interested parties. A conflict of interest I think the term is?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

corus

 

[dfish67]

It seems to me that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Global Warming (which is measured) is caused by anthropological activities. It seems disingenuous to label those that disagree and are following the scientific method as crackpots. The only way to conclusively say that humans are causing global warming is to completely ignore the scientific method. Are there ANY peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that current global warming is caused by anthropological activities? (That is not a rhetorical question.)

 

[tgmcg]

Nobody has responded to the comment about Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", which contains a large amount of scientific data suggesting that Global Warming is much smaller than claimed by it's proponents.

It "should" be a given to reasonable people that the climate has never been static and is either trending up or down. Thirty years ago the same folks leading the jihad over global warming were saying we were headed for another ice age.

While corus has doubts about Prof Lindzen's objectivity based on something he's found on a conspiracy website, I too am skeptical of the proponents of the THEORY of catastrophic global warming because it's so stridently advocated by the far left who've been on the anti-oil, anti-capitalist bandwagon for the past 90 years. Interesting how none of the proponents acknowledge it as simply a THEORY. Computer models are not data.

So long as we're playing "follow the money", It's more than curious how China was excluded from compliance with Kyoto. Far left US politics, Euro-socialist supporters, China...hmmm...any connection there? Nah! (g)

 

[Tomfh]

Ah I see, it's all a commie conspiracy...

 

[tgmcg]

My statements regarding Communist China being excluded from Kyoto, and the most vocal supporters of Kyoto are both factually correct. Add to that, China's worldwide quest for oil reserves (BTW...I totally support China's quest for energy resources from anywhere).

My THEORY that the above three facts might be connected is just that, a THEORY supported facts.....unlike "catastrophic" global warming, which is only supported by computer climate models (which are rubbish).

By all means, feel free to dispute the supporting facts for my THEORY.

 

[owg]

I have been suspicious of global warming for many years, but on balance I tend to believe that anthropological CO2 is causing global warming. I have read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and the subsequent discussions on it. I conclude that is a compilation of selected data to make a point, and is in no way scientific. For example he publishes a few graphs of cities which are getting colder while ignoring the majority that are getting warmer. The global warming battle is taking shape on three fronts. 1. We should reduce CO2 emissions without destroying our economies (I am not a Kyoto fan). 2. We should take steps to mitigate the coming damage, e.g. re-write building codes as necessary. and 3. Push ahead with Geo-Engineering ideas to take control of global temperature on a 10 to 20 year time frame.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[bridgebuster]

A recent story suggesting that cosmic rays might be responsible. I first saw this a few years ago on the Discovery Channel. It doesn't get much press because it's not politically correct or anti-US.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

Any word on how the "enlightened" and "responsible" signers of the Kyoto treaty are doing? I read in the National Review some time ago that the Europeans can't meet their targets are are trying to find a way to wiggle out of the deal.

 

[Dinosaur]

It is my opinion that Kyoto and Global Warming are only about politics.

Global warming is exceedingly far from being a proven theory, but the solution is clear to those who have already accepted it; "All wealthy consumers must be made to pay for and pursue corrective action immediately."

And this is being trumpeted by high profile politicos that fly 1000s of miles in their chartered jets (e.g. Al Gore) to spread the word.

It is shameful and embarrasing.

 

[rnip]

I am shocked to see so many people who do not believe in Global Warming. There was something called the Industrial Revolution. This increased all the pollutions in the air dramatically. An example is the coal usage in the US during this time period. In 1800, the coal usage was around 10 million tonnes. By 1900, it was already 250 million tonnes, and now it's steady around 550 million tonnes, because of the other fuel sources. Think of the increase of CO2 just from coal.

VisiGoth : "The first part of the error in how others are viewed is in the perception that C02 is bad. In our area we are feeding the world on land that was once covered in a glacier. The more glaciers we can melt, the more we can feed."

I have to completely disagree with that. You are only thinking of land melting, but have you consider the land that will disappear because of this. Florida will definitely be one of the first place in the US to be covered by water if Global Warming continues, and L.A. won't be too far behind. You tell me if you still think glacier melting is good.

rnip

 

[zdas04]

rnip,
"Belief" is a very personal thing that involves acceptance of a theory without facts or in the face of "facts" that disprove the theory.

The people in this thread are saying that they are not willing to accept a concept on faith that has as many dissenting "experts" as conforming "experts". State of Fear was a novel, but it had at least one point that I am willing to accept on "faith"--computer models do not prove anything and all the "facts" about global warming are couched in terms of computer models. I run pipeline models all the time and often get results very much at odds with measured data. This shows me that accepting a model without a reality check is just stupid.

Your sarcastic reference to the industrial revolution was inappropriate. No one here doubts the "fact" that local conditions can be negatively impacted by industry. That has to do with local conditions, not global patterns. The water vapor in the environment is many times more potent a "greenhouse gas" than CO2, but most of that comes from evaporation of the oceans and you just can't make any villans from evaporation.

David

 

[SnTMan]

Maybe this has been asked and answered in other threads, but...

Is there any proof that increased CO2 levels cause warming, rather than warming causing increased CO2 levels?

Cause? Effect? Just association?

Regards,

Mike

 

[owg]

SnTMan - I don't think the proof exists. There are explanations supporting both directions. Greenhouse CO2 could be making us warmer. More heat from the Sun could be heating up the earth and causing increased evolution of CO2.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[VisiGoth]

rnip,

Yes, I still think there are benefits from melting glaciers. I also stated that melting hurts people. My point is that it has been happening, and will happen. I suggest that we should help those who will be hurt by the change.

Someday the oceans will be the deserts and visa versa. Someday the sun will expand and consume the earth, or at least be so close that it is impractical to stay here. After that the sun goes out. So, we should learn to adapt and help those that are hurt by change.

Pointing to the fractional affect of CO2 on this change is not productive. I posit that it is unproductive and takes away from good that can be done by taking those resources away from real programs. Carbon brokering has a politics side that is dangerous.

 

[ivymike]

There are explanations supporting both directions. Greenhouse CO2 could be making us warmer. More heat from the Sun could be heating up the earth and causing increased evolution of CO2

Those scenarios aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

 

[GregLocock]

More like positive feedback, I'd have said.

I'll just re-inject some figures on the carbon cycle. This is somewhat separate from Global Warming, in fact it assumes (as Kyoto does) that high CO2 levels are detrimental, which not everyone agrees with.

Every year 210e9 tonnes of CO2 are created naturally and injected into, or move from elsewhere and are injected into, into the atmosphere.

Every year 210e9 (approximately) tonnes of CO2 are reabsorbed or broken down or otherwise extracted from the atmosphere, by natural processes.

These processes are more or less independent at least in the short term. That is, there is no direct mechanism that limits the reabsorption process to only cope with a set amount of CO2 per year. In chemistry the reaction rate is (first order) proportional to the concentration of the chemicals, therefore there is a perfectly sensible feedback loop that says that a new equilibrium will eventually be established at a higher level of CO2 if the amount of CO2 that is added to the cycle increases. That is, we'd expect the changes in CO2 flow to be more or less proportional to small changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Mankind adds an additional 7e9 tonnes of CO2 per year to the above cycle.

In other words, Kyoto people are postulating a system that can happily cope with a flow rate of 210 GT/y, but which apparently requires drastic reconfiguration to cope with 217 GT/y. Now, there certainly are systems that cannot cope with a 3.5% change in flow rates, but it would be a bit of a surprise if the Earth just happened to be on the cusp of instability just as we turned up.

Now there are two further issues. First, adding CO2 may tend to increase the global average temperature. Again, Kyoto assumes this is so, and it is a bad thing. This increase in temperature may affect the feedback loop. Simplistically, a hot summer encourages grass growth. When it dies it is burned or eaten by bacteria, releasing CO2. The same CO2 that it used to grow in the first place, in fact. So, the higher the temperature, the faster the flow rate. So in this simplistic example, we have another feedback loop, only this time the flow rate changes but the equilibrium level of CO2 is unchanged.

The other thing I haven't got the faintest idea about is time scale. A chemistry based solution says that the flow rate is proportional to concentration, but that is only after equilibrium has been reached. I have seen no particular discussion of lag, or damping, or time constants, all of which might contribute to some unhealthy peaks in response between two satisfactory equilibrium concentrations.






Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg: the challenge with your reasoning is that you have to know the dynamics of your system to understand what will happen to your measured variable when you attempt to shift the equilibrium. The magnitude of the basic flows is more or less irrelevant: what matters is the dynamics of the change, and of the forward and reverse processes.

We've created what amounts to, on the geological timescale a step change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. That's measurable. Input minus output equals accumulation: another way of stating the same thing is that accumulation is proof that input is exceeding output.

On the geological timescale, life will adapt. The question is: will our climate be unduly and irreversibly affected by this change which we have brought about, over a timescale which compared with geological time is the mere blinking of an eye?

Humans have caused a step change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations- that's not something we can argue about, since it's been measured. What is debated is whether we understand the climate well enough to know what that means in terms of global mean temperature, much less local effects. And the answer to this, again, is that the mere THREAT that we might be causing irreversible, catastrophic climate change by our present fossil fuel addiction should be sufficient for us to do everything we can to curb this behaviour and get real about our energy sources and consumption rates. In my view, even ignoring the potential harm associated with global warming, there are plenty of other demonstrable harms associated with our present rate of fossil fuel exploitation to warrant serious efforts to curb our current stupid, wasteful behaviour.

 

[jmw]

Too many people believe in the "butterfly flapping its wings..." scenario without understanding when it applies and when it doesn't.
The evidence over the millenia is that the earth's climate is relatively stable and thus has a number of auto-matic checks and balances.

"realtively stable?" I think that "very stable" would be a better term.

Whatever the "average CO2 release" is and whatever the rate of removal, the rate of CO2 release cannot be uniform.
We link CO2 to industry yet man has been busy transforming the planet since he arrived. Agriculture and animal husbandry must have made a substantial change to the environment.

So when we consider Greg's argument, we realise that it is only wrong if 210e9 to 217e9 passes some magic ultimate limit on the ecosystems ability to absorb change.

Just think of all the effects to consider: planetary orbit, precession, angle of tip, solar activity, seismic activity, meteor impacts, plate tectonics, volcanoes, forest fires, lava flows, the influence of the moon, spin, planet size etc.

If you think about it, there are plenty of precidents for various substantial species wipe outs but few can be attributed to anything as simple as CO2 increase. Most require some catastrophic event. Even so, life is still present on the planet.

Incidentally, the last mini-ice-age coincided with a prolonged period of minimal solar activity.... and this is data that is excluded from the models.....




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Humans have caused a step change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations- that's not something we can argue about, since it's been measured.
I think we can agree that there has been a measureable increase in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations. However, to say that humans have caused it is open to discussion.

Speaking to the geologic timescale, currently, atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] are right around 400 ppm, At only one other time in the last 600 million years - The Carboniferous Period - have CO[sub]2[/sub] levels been as low as they are today. Right now, the earth is at one exteme of the carbon concentration scale - the low end. Geologically, the earth's atmosphere is in a constant state of cyclical change and CO[sub]2[/sub] levels are no exception. Given that, wouldn't it be natural to think that when the levels are on the low extreme, they would tend to cycle back to the middle? To think that humans are reponsible for such change is suspect, and moreover, to think the we could, or should, try to stop such a process given our current knowledge level is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous. Action out of ignorance, even with the best of intentions, usually results is making things worse.

That doesn't mean we should ignore the situation. It means that we need to prudent and reasonable. We must be very careful not to let FUD and political agenda drive an emotional response to a situation that we know very little about.

Nor does it mean that we can continue to be wasteful, far from it. We all need to be better stewards of our environment and be conservative with our limited resources.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jmw]

Well said CajunCenturion.
It is a sad reflection that anyone posting here or who in the wider world who expresses an unpopular doubt should always have to add a caveat:

"Nor does it mean that we can continue to be wasteful, far from it. We all need to be better stewards of our environment and be conservative with our limited resources."

to try and avoid being labelled as polluters and destroyers.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com